Cited by

Relationship evidence “is relevant because it illuminates the history of the relationship between the victim and 8 defendant and may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate c ourts “presume that juries follow instructions given by the [district] court.”

To demonstrate that the error did not impact the defendant’s substantial rights, “the [s]t ate must show that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question wo uld have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Matthews , 551 (Minn. 2010) (citing Ramey, d at 300).

Prosecutors may argue that a specific defense raised by the defendant has no merit, but they may not “belittle either the defendant or a particular defense in the abstract.”

However, the state’s argument need not be colorless, and it may include “conclusions and inferences that are reasonably drawn from the facts in evidence.”

Despite a tendency among courts to conflate the two, , “[r]elationship evidence adm itted under section 634.20 is a subtype of general relationship evidence.

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2016); State v. Loving , , 8 79-80 (Minn. 2009) .

see Smith v. Kahler Corp. , d 146, 153 (Minn. 1973) (noting district court’s “considerable latitude” in choosing jury instructions and that instructions need not “guard against” all possibilities for “misapprehension” (quotation omitted)).

A. Mischaracterizing expert evidence The prosecution’s closing argument “may include conclusions and inferences that are reasonably drawn from the facts in evidence.”

Evidence admitted pursuant to section 634.20 is commonly known as “relationship evidence.” .

(concluding that the alleged misconduct did not permeate the entire argumen t because it was “limited to a few lines in a 48–page closing argument”).

d 543, 553 (Minn. 2010) (providing that objections to complaint must be made at least three days before omnibus hearing or they are waived); (holding that issues not raised in district court, including “constitutional questions of criminal procedure,” are generally

“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

In making this determination, courts consider various factors including, but not limited to, whether the defendant had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks, the pervasiveness of the error in proceedings, and the strength of the evidence against defendant, Cao, d at 717.

State v. Matthews , , 552 (Minn. 2010).

Section 634.20 provides for the admission of what is known as “relationship evidence.” State v. Mathews

See, (holding that the alleged misconduct did not permeate the entire argument because it was “ limited to a few lines in a 48-page closing argument”); (holding that the misconduct was harmless because it was “confined to roughly two pages of transc

It is relevant “when it pro vides context for the crime charged.” State v. Matthews

see State v. Matthews , , 548 (Minn. 2010).

-49 (Minn. 2010) (citations omitted).

Juries are presumed to “follow instructions given by the court.” State v. Matthews

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2018) provides for admission of what is known as “relationship evidence.” State v. Matthews

This is because when courts consider the admission of relationship evidence, the determination “is naturally considered as part of the assessment of [its] probative value versus [its] prejudicial effect.” Meyer, d at 849; s (“[r]elationship evidence is relevant because it ‘illuminates the history of the relationship’”).

(presumption that juries follow instructions given by the court).

Under the modified plain -error test, “the [s] tate must show that there is no ‘ reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.’” (quoting Ramey, d at 302).

The district court has the discretion to allow the state to present “[e]vidence of domestic conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic conduct, or against other family or household members,” commonly referred to as “relatio nship evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20

“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

This court “presume[s] that juries follow instructions given by the [district] court.”

Minnesota courts “presume that juries follow instructions given by the court.”